The majority argued that women's access to coverage will not be interrupted, because, much like religious non-profits that were already exempted, the insurance company now has to pick up the slack and pay for the contraceptives. And it was 4 out of 20 kinds of contraceptions they objected to. I am unclear if they will not pay for any, or just those 4. But, in theory, this will be paid for now by the insurance company, not matched by the employers.

But the big problem is that a sets a precedent where for-profit corporations can claim religious exceptions to various laws, and therefore, not have to fully comply with the law. So where does that end?

But a shit decision, none the less. Corporations are not people. They are a way that people can act like shits and get away with it.

CarlMud
—
2014-06-30T16:09:51Z —
#4

Corporations are the imaginary friends that unethical owners blame for broken windows.

simonize
—
2014-06-30T16:13:17Z —
#5

Since contraception costs less than childbirth, isn't the net cost of contraception negative?

funruly
—
2014-06-30T16:13:19Z —
#6

I wonder if Justice Stephen Breyer ever says, "Not all men on the Supreme Court..."

Boundegar
—
2014-06-30T16:13:51Z —
#7

I am wondering if Hobby Lobby is now required to "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and... have treasure in heaven"? [Lk 18:22]

daneel
—
2014-06-30T16:14:15Z —
#8

In the absence of common sense, is there a nice list somewhere of companies that will be taking advantage of this ruling so I can avoid giving them any money?

I'd never heard of this Hobby Lobby company before this case blew up so avoiding them will probably be quite easy.

On my next tax return I'll be listing all the things that the Government does that are against my 'religion' and be requesting a refund. Chiefly, 'Defense' spending.

the insurance company now has to pick up the slack and pay for the contraceptives

And as long as this fools god hobby lobby can go to heaven!

This is just too many layers of stupid. I don't even know who to laugh at.

Mindysan33
—
2014-06-30T16:16:26Z —
#11

Do you think that there is a separate heaven for corporations? Like there is a Catholic heaven, a protestant heaven, a Muslim heaven, a Jewish Heaven, and a Mormon heaven? So is there a heaven for corporations to frolic in eternity?

Boundegar
—
2014-06-30T16:19:25Z —
#12

It's really unclear what he's advocating - robbing the store, or robbing the workers, who have already been robbed by their employer?

Also, of course there is a corporation heaven, but it is currently empty.

Steve_L
—
2014-06-30T16:20:05Z —
#13

Mindysan33:

But the big problem is that a sets a precedent where for-profit corporations can claim religious exceptions to various laws, and therefore, not have to fully comply with the law. So where does that end?

My guess? This ends as soon as a corporation claims that their religious beliefs exempt them from paying taxes. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the US will try to claim Reynolds v. United States as precedence and the corporation will try to claim this case. There are plenty of other loopholes that corporations can use to pay as little tax as possible; if that tactic succeeded I think we'd see a lot more corporations find religion.

Mindysan33
—
2014-06-30T16:20:33Z —
#14

I think they are advocating applying for jobs... but you're right, it's kind of unclear.

stefanjones
—
2014-06-30T16:22:04Z —
#15

BREAKING NEWS!

In a concession to critics, Hobby Lobby will be giving female employees free religious-themed Paint-By-Number sets to distract themselves from their sordid urges.

Mindysan33
—
2014-06-30T16:23:27Z —
#16

Wal-Mart is probably already looking into that! This is the prosperity doctrine we are dealing with here, right? If they profit, it is god's favor... clearly god doesn't want them to pay some of that back in taxes. Also, isn't the mandatory minimum wage cutting into god's profits? That's got to go!

But, I doubt the supremes would rule in their favor on that. It really is much more of a stretch here than on the issues of 4 kinds of contracptives.

IMB
—
2014-06-30T16:27:48Z —
#17

If they have a collective religion as a for profit organization, and are dictating adherence of that religion through employees' coverage, aren't they then discriminating against other religions?

ethicalcannibal
—
2014-06-30T16:28:44Z —
#18

We have Hobby Lobby, Joannes, and Micheals in my city. I'm a costumer/cosplayer so I give a lot of my paycheck to these establishments. So do many of my friends. I stopped spending at Hobby Lobby when this first started, and have successfully cajoled, convinced, and shamed my circle of friends into doing the same.

It's the only thing I can do. They don't really care what I think, and obviously they have have the supreme court working in their favor. It's very frustrating.

Ambiguity
—
2014-06-30T16:31:38Z —
#19

Not to be a pedantic civil libertarian, but the thing to keep in mind about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), is that it has already been found unconstitutional when applied to the states (but it can still stand at a Federal level). So states are still free to restrain religion without demonstrating a Compelling State Interest, so long as they do so with laws of general applicability.

This, coupled with the fact that the RFRA is a law and can therefore be repealed at any time, means that religious freedoms are at best fragile.

Mindysan33
—
2014-06-30T16:35:16Z —
#20

According to the ruling, the just don't have to match the funding for contraceptives, but the insurance Co. has to instead. They are required by law to do so. According to the majority, this means that women still have access to whatever kind of birth control they want. How that actually works in real life is another question entirely.